Has Starmer really though through his statement that Andrew M-W should assist the US authorities?
Not opposed to this if the US authorities require this.
But if Andrew should answer questions then so should Peter Mandelson who appears to have -
- lied about his knowledge of Epstein's behaviour; - received money from a man involved in and convicted of sex trafficking (why?); - used Epstein as some sort of adviser on government deals (why?), - failed to be transparent about any of this to the relevant Parliamentary and Cabinet bodies
and who for part of this period was a senior member of the government and later U.K. ambassador to the US.
IMO the questions for Mandelson are just as serious and they are ones which ought to be asked by the authorities here. He is still a member of the legislature here.
I think distinction is that the DOJ and Congress have requested information/interview with Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor but they haven't for Lord Mandelson.
You are missing the point. The people who need to ask questions of Mandelson are in the U.K.
HMRC, for instance, about the so-called 'loan' to Mandelson's husband. All the issues I have identified above relate to the U.K.. He is a member of our legislature. He has more power and influence than Andrew.
There is a real danger here - as in, for instance, the Post Office scandal - of focusing all the anger and disgust on one useful scapegoat and the others equally responsible get ignored. This should not be allowed to happen. Mandelson is meant to be intelligent; just as Jes Staley was and Bill Gates and others and yet all of them, including Andrew, have behaved like utter duplicitous scumbags.
Some are questioning why Andrew is not being questioned by the police over yesterday's revelations as trafficking is a criminal offence
I expect there will be increasing demands for the police to become involved with Andrew
He would have to have known the woman was trafficked, he did not do the trafficking himself, that was Epstein and Maxwell who have already been convicted and jailed (or would have been in the former case)
Which allows me to mention this point again. Maxwell, convicted sex trafficker, has British, French and USA nationality. Why has there been no move to strip her of her British nationality?
Legalising class A drugs ! Not sure this is a vote winner .
Nor am I but is it a vote loser? When was the last time a celebrity was cancelled over drug use? Or politician? Cameron, Osborne, Boris, Gove?
Going for the coked-up footie fan vote?
the whole discussion around drugs by our politicians has been pathetic for decades ever since Labour sacked David Nutt for stating the bleeding obvious
I don't like drugs, and have never done them, and nor would I want to be seen promoting them but, personally, my view has always been nuanced if people really want to take them.
I think it's a really bad idea to put adulturated chemical substances in your body but I don't see it as my business.
You drink, you ingest caffeine, you no doubt imbibe many other psychotropics without even realising
I hate to say this (in some ways) but there is a chance Skyr Toolmakersson might be saved by a brisk upswing in the global economy. Technology of all kinds is now rapidly transforming economies (even technologies as relatively trivial as weight loss drugs). See the productivity miracle unfolding in Trump’s America, now being echoed in the UK (after decades of drift)
I remember we used to say Starmer was a “lucky general”. We don’t any more
However, we may be forced to disinter the phrase if the UK goes into a mini-boom alongside other advanced economies. This worst and most depressing of prime ministers might actually get a second term. God ‘elp us
On the other hand it means the Republicans are equally likely to win again in 2028 if America booms (and their boom will be bigger than ours)
I hate to say this (in some ways) but there is a chance Skyr Toolmakersson might be saved by a brisk upswing in the global economy. Technology of all kinds is now rapidly transforming economies (even technologies as relatively trivial as weight loss drugs). See the productivity miracle unfolding in Trump’s America, now being echoed in the UK (after decades of drift)
I remember we used to say Starmer was a “lucky general”. We don’t any more
However, we may be forced to disinter the phrase if the UK goes into a mini-boom alongside other advanced economies. This worst and most depressing of prime ministers might actually get a second term. God ‘elp us
On the other hand it means the Republicans are equally likely to win again in 2028 if America booms (and their boom will be bigger than ours)
So, swings and roundabouts
But we keep being told AI is useless and doesn't make anybody more productive....checks on Claude Code agents currently writing 1000s of lines of code.
I see the odds on Vance and Newsom as next President are converging towards 4.4. Vance is lengthening. Newsom is shortening. At the moment they are the only two in the race. Rubio and AOC are a fairly distant 3rd and 4th.
I think the dream ticket for the Democrats in Newsom for President and AOC as his VP. Newson, tall white straight male, is type cast for the role of President. Trump would approve. Newsom will appeal to information poor independents just on his appearance alone. So he can widen the net.
AOC, on the other hand, will get out the vote of core Democrats, particularly the young. With Newsom leading strategy, and providing reassurance on AOC, they would make a formidable team. I don't think this will emerge until after the midterms, but I would put money on it.
I hate to say this (in some ways) but there is a chance Skyr Toolmakersson might be saved by a brisk upswing in the global economy. Technology of all kinds is now rapidly transforming economies (even technologies as relatively trivial as weight loss drugs). See the productivity miracle unfolding in Trump’s America, now being echoed in the UK (after decades of drift)
I remember we used to say Starmer was a “lucky general”. We don’t any more
However, we may be forced to disinter the phrase if the UK goes into a mini-boom alongside other advanced economies. This worst and most depressing of prime ministers might actually get a second term. God ‘elp us
On the other hand it means the Republicans are equally likely to win again in 2028 if America booms (and their boom will be bigger than ours)
So, swings and roundabouts
This comment on the recent spate of visits to China was interesting. He's usually quite pro-CCP so maybe take it with a pinch of salt, but his take is that Starmer got the most tangible wins while Macron got virtually nothing.
I hate to say this (in some ways) but there is a chance Skyr Toolmakersson might be saved by a brisk upswing in the global economy. Technology of all kinds is now rapidly transforming economies (even technologies as relatively trivial as weight loss drugs). See the productivity miracle unfolding in Trump’s America, now being echoed in the UK (after decades of drift)
I remember we used to say Starmer was a “lucky general”. We don’t any more
However, we may be forced to disinter the phrase if the UK goes into a mini-boom alongside other advanced economies. This worst and most depressing of prime ministers might actually get a second term. God ‘elp us
On the other hand it means the Republicans are equally likely to win again in 2028 if America booms (and their boom will be bigger than ours)
So, swings and roundabouts
Meaningless unless people personally benefit.
In fact people get even more annoyed if there is economic growth without them benefiting than they do from no economic growth.
Rising productivity can mean greater profits for the rich alongside fewer jobs and more output for no more pay for the workers.
Some are questioning why Andrew is not being questioned by the police over yesterday's revelations as trafficking is a criminal offence
I expect there will be increasing demands for the police to become involved with Andrew
He would have to have known the woman was trafficked, he did not do the trafficking himself, that was Epstein and Maxwell who have already been convicted and jailed (or would have been in the former case)
Which allows me to mention this point again. Maxwell, convicted sex trafficker, has British, French and USA nationality. Why has there been no move to strip her of her British nationality?
The Home Secretary can strip a person of British nationality if they will not be rendered stateless by doing so and if it would be conducive to the public good or the citizenship was obtained by fraud.
“Conducive to the public good” is the only significant issue here. Usually it’s on national security or serious crime grounds but there are wider issues for the HS to consider. One of them being the diplomatic backlash arising from washing our hands of one of our criminal citizens and leaving her as solely the problem of another country. While we might not care what Bangladesh (Shamima Begum) thinks of us doing so, we likely do care about what the US and, to an extent, France thinks of us dumping our highly problematic citizens on them alone.
For example, if Pakistan stripped Anjem Choudary of his citizenship, leaving him unable to be stripped of U.K. citizenship, we’d be unhappy I guess.
I hate to say this (in some ways) but there is a chance Skyr Toolmakersson might be saved by a brisk upswing in the global economy. Technology of all kinds is now rapidly transforming economies (even technologies as relatively trivial as weight loss drugs). See the productivity miracle unfolding in Trump’s America, now being echoed in the UK (after decades of drift)
I remember we used to say Starmer was a “lucky general”. We don’t any more
However, we may be forced to disinter the phrase if the UK goes into a mini-boom alongside other advanced economies. This worst and most depressing of prime ministers might actually get a second term. God ‘elp us
On the other hand it means the Republicans are equally likely to win again in 2028 if America booms (and their boom will be bigger than ours)
So, swings and roundabouts
Don't worry, we all know the golden rule. Weak economy, Labour's fault. Strong economy, nothing to do with Labour.
I hate to say this (in some ways) but there is a chance Skyr Toolmakersson might be saved by a brisk upswing in the global economy. Technology of all kinds is now rapidly transforming economies (even technologies as relatively trivial as weight loss drugs). See the productivity miracle unfolding in Trump’s America, now being echoed in the UK (after decades of drift)
I remember we used to say Starmer was a “lucky general”. We don’t any more
However, we may be forced to disinter the phrase if the UK goes into a mini-boom alongside other advanced economies. This worst and most depressing of prime ministers might actually get a second term. God ‘elp us
On the other hand it means the Republicans are equally likely to win again in 2028 if America booms (and their boom will be bigger than ours)
So, swings and roundabouts
Don't worry, we all know the golden rule. Weak economy, Labour's fault. Strong economy, nothing to do with Labour.
Jeez, I’m saying positive things - albeit with a grimace - about this Labour govt and its future chances. Take the W
I hate to say this (in some ways) but there is a chance Skyr Toolmakersson might be saved by a brisk upswing in the global economy. Technology of all kinds is now rapidly transforming economies (even technologies as relatively trivial as weight loss drugs). See the productivity miracle unfolding in Trump’s America, now being echoed in the UK (after decades of drift)
I remember we used to say Starmer was a “lucky general”. We don’t any more
However, we may be forced to disinter the phrase if the UK goes into a mini-boom alongside other advanced economies. This worst and most depressing of prime ministers might actually get a second term. God ‘elp us
On the other hand it means the Republicans are equally likely to win again in 2028 if America booms (and their boom will be bigger than ours)
So, swings and roundabouts
Trump's tariffs and rising US cost of living are not helping the US boom at present, Starmer's high taxes and over regulation and high minimum wage have seen inflation and unemployment rising too
I see the odds on Vance and Newsom as next President are converging towards 4.4. Vance is lengthening. Newsom is shortening. At the moment they are the only two in the race. Rubio and AOC are a fairly distant 3rd and 4th.
I think the dream ticket for the Democrats in Newsom for President and AOC as his VP. Newson, tall white straight male, is type cast for the role of President. Trump would approve. Newsom will appeal to information poor independents just on his appearance alone. So he can widen the net.
AOC, on the other hand, will get out the vote of core Democrats, particularly the young. With Newsom leading strategy, and providing reassurance on AOC, they would make a formidable team. I don't think this will emerge until after the midterms, but I would put money on it.
A California with New York ego ticket is far from ideal.
And Newsom would have to explain this in any Presidential election:
California will welcome the new year by becoming the first state to offer health insurance for all undocumented immigrants.
I'm not sure that voters in Arizona or Michigan who are struggling to pay their own health premiums will be happy to pay extra tax so that illegal immigrants get free health care.
Note that the graphic contains the text "...Margin of error is displayed at +/- 4%. All polls are subject to a wide range of potential sources of error. On the basis of the historical record of the polls at recent general elections, there is a 9 in 10 chance that the true value of a party's support lies within 4 points of the estimates provided by this poll, and a 2 in three chance that they lie within 2 points..."
This statement obeys the British Polling Council rules concerning margin of error.
So Reform are either level with Labour or 16 points ahead.
Or somewhere in between.
Or not (10% chance).
It's great that they are honest enough to admit the limitations of their work, albeit doubtless in the tiniest print their lawyers will let them get away with. But it also shows how foolish people are to obsess about tiny movements one way or the other, no matter which side they benefit.
I've noticed that it has become common for people (usually Labour fans) to claim that @FindOutNowUK ranks Reform UK as massively higher in polls than every single other pollster.
This is objectively false. It is simply not true. Majority of pollsters have Reform on 30% or above
I hate to say this (in some ways) but there is a chance Skyr Toolmakersson might be saved by a brisk upswing in the global economy. Technology of all kinds is now rapidly transforming economies (even technologies as relatively trivial as weight loss drugs). See the productivity miracle unfolding in Trump’s America, now being echoed in the UK (after decades of drift)
I remember we used to say Starmer was a “lucky general”. We don’t any more
However, we may be forced to disinter the phrase if the UK goes into a mini-boom alongside other advanced economies. This worst and most depressing of prime ministers might actually get a second term. God ‘elp us
On the other hand it means the Republicans are equally likely to win again in 2028 if America booms (and their boom will be bigger than ours)
So, swings and roundabouts
Don't worry, we all know the golden rule. Weak economy, Labour's fault. Strong economy, nothing to do with Labour.
Jeez, I’m saying positive things - albeit with a grimace - about this Labour govt and its future chances. Take the W
I am taking the W - my face is reflecting that as I type - but I've decided to make that sarcastic supplementary point.
You're already pitchrolling by saying the upswing will not be UK specific and will be mainly due to external factors, ie luck. That happens to be correct. But when it comes to poor economic news it's straight out of the gate with "Labour are shit, Reeves is clueless" bla di bla. Not just you, tbf, this is a pretty widespread (bad) habit on the unthinking partisan right.
I hate to say this (in some ways) but there is a chance Skyr Toolmakersson might be saved by a brisk upswing in the global economy. Technology of all kinds is now rapidly transforming economies (even technologies as relatively trivial as weight loss drugs). See the productivity miracle unfolding in Trump’s America, now being echoed in the UK (after decades of drift)
I remember we used to say Starmer was a “lucky general”. We don’t any more
However, we may be forced to disinter the phrase if the UK goes into a mini-boom alongside other advanced economies. This worst and most depressing of prime ministers might actually get a second term. God ‘elp us
On the other hand it means the Republicans are equally likely to win again in 2028 if America booms (and their boom will be bigger than ours)
So, swings and roundabouts
Don't worry, we all know the golden rule. Weak economy, Labour's fault. Strong economy, nothing to do with Labour.
Jeez, I’m saying positive things - albeit with a grimace - about this Labour govt and its future chances. Take the W
I am taking the W - my face is reflecting that as I type - but I've decided to make that sarcastic supplementary point.
You're already pitchrolling by saying the upswing will not be UK specific and will be mainly due to external factors, ie luck. That happens to be correct. But when it comes to poor economic news it's straight out of the gate with "Labour are shit, Reeves is clueless" bla di bla. Not just you, tbf, this is a pretty widespread (bad) habit on the unthinking partisan right.
But it is the case. Labour have done almost fuck all to help the economy and a lot to harm it. Yet they may still benefit from a global tech driven upswing
Same goes for useless incumbents across the world. Especially the GOP. So this is not a left-right thing
Humanity has had a rough few years. We are owed a lucky break
I hate to say this (in some ways) but there is a chance Skyr Toolmakersson might be saved by a brisk upswing in the global economy. Technology of all kinds is now rapidly transforming economies (even technologies as relatively trivial as weight loss drugs). See the productivity miracle unfolding in Trump’s America, now being echoed in the UK (after decades of drift)
I remember we used to say Starmer was a “lucky general”. We don’t any more
However, we may be forced to disinter the phrase if the UK goes into a mini-boom alongside other advanced economies. This worst and most depressing of prime ministers might actually get a second term. God ‘elp us
On the other hand it means the Republicans are equally likely to win again in 2028 if America booms (and their boom will be bigger than ours)
So, swings and roundabouts
Don't worry, we all know the golden rule. Weak economy, Labour's fault. Strong economy, nothing to do with Labour.
In my lifetime, the opposition has always blamed the government for a weak economy and ignored strong performance.
Also, partisans of the government always declare that the news reporting is unfair to them.
I hate to say this (in some ways) but there is a chance Skyr Toolmakersson might be saved by a brisk upswing in the global economy. Technology of all kinds is now rapidly transforming economies (even technologies as relatively trivial as weight loss drugs). See the productivity miracle unfolding in Trump’s America, now being echoed in the UK (after decades of drift)
I remember we used to say Starmer was a “lucky general”. We don’t any more
However, we may be forced to disinter the phrase if the UK goes into a mini-boom alongside other advanced economies. This worst and most depressing of prime ministers might actually get a second term. God ‘elp us
On the other hand it means the Republicans are equally likely to win again in 2028 if America booms (and their boom will be bigger than ours)
So, swings and roundabouts
Don't worry, we all know the golden rule. Weak economy, Labour's fault. Strong economy, nothing to do with Labour.
Jeez, I’m saying positive things - albeit with a grimace - about this Labour govt and its future chances. Take the W
I am taking the W - my face is reflecting that as I type - but I've decided to make that sarcastic supplementary point.
You're already pitchrolling by saying the upswing will not be UK specific and will be mainly due to external factors, ie luck. That happens to be correct. But when it comes to poor economic news it's straight out of the gate with "Labour are shit, Reeves is clueless" bla di bla. Not just you, tbf, this is a pretty widespread (bad) habit on the unthinking partisan right.
The hopeless, hapless Stride was on LBC the other evening claiming again that Labour have squandered the golden legacy they inherited. Now I suspect we are all disappointed in this Government and Starmer in particular, but they inherited a golden legacy? Lies, damned lies and dodgy statistics.
I hate to say this (in some ways) but there is a chance Skyr Toolmakersson might be saved by a brisk upswing in the global economy. Technology of all kinds is now rapidly transforming economies (even technologies as relatively trivial as weight loss drugs). See the productivity miracle unfolding in Trump’s America, now being echoed in the UK (after decades of drift)
I remember we used to say Starmer was a “lucky general”. We don’t any more
However, we may be forced to disinter the phrase if the UK goes into a mini-boom alongside other advanced economies. This worst and most depressing of prime ministers might actually get a second term. God ‘elp us
On the other hand it means the Republicans are equally likely to win again in 2028 if America booms (and their boom will be bigger than ours)
So, swings and roundabouts
Major wasn't forgiven, and his 90s economy did far better than Starmer's will ever do.
I hate to say this (in some ways) but there is a chance Skyr Toolmakersson might be saved by a brisk upswing in the global economy. Technology of all kinds is now rapidly transforming economies (even technologies as relatively trivial as weight loss drugs). See the productivity miracle unfolding in Trump’s America, now being echoed in the UK (after decades of drift)
I remember we used to say Starmer was a “lucky general”. We don’t any more
However, we may be forced to disinter the phrase if the UK goes into a mini-boom alongside other advanced economies. This worst and most depressing of prime ministers might actually get a second term. God ‘elp us
On the other hand it means the Republicans are equally likely to win again in 2028 if America booms (and their boom will be bigger than ours)
So, swings and roundabouts
Don't worry, we all know the golden rule. Weak economy, Labour's fault. Strong economy, nothing to do with Labour.
Jeez, I’m saying positive things - albeit with a grimace - about this Labour govt and its future chances. Take the W
I am taking the W - my face is reflecting that as I type - but I've decided to make that sarcastic supplementary point.
You're already pitchrolling by saying the upswing will not be UK specific and will be mainly due to external factors, ie luck. That happens to be correct. But when it comes to poor economic news it's straight out of the gate with "Labour are shit, Reeves is clueless" bla di bla. Not just you, tbf, this is a pretty widespread (bad) habit on the unthinking partisan right.
But it is the case. Labour have done almost fuck all to help the economy and a lot to harm it. Yet they may still benefit from a global tech driven upswing
Same goes for useless incumbents across the world. Especially the GOP. So this is not a left-right thing
Humanity has had a rough few years. We are owed a lucky break
The government has a choice coming up - either they can stick with the Process State cult of ever more paperwork or TaKe Another Route.
Either AI can be used to vastly expand the river of pointless* bullshit - in an endless arms race with AI to summarise said bullshit. Or we can rework process to meet the needs of ordinary humans, not the form fillers.
*in some ways the bullshit is not pointless. It is not harmless. Grenfell had metric tons of paperwork that proved it was fire safe, environmentally friendly, feminist, multicultural and non-fattening. Before it burnt down because it was covered in firelighters. The bullshit mountain obscured the truth.
I see the odds on Vance and Newsom as next President are converging towards 4.4. Vance is lengthening. Newsom is shortening. At the moment they are the only two in the race. Rubio and AOC are a fairly distant 3rd and 4th.
I think the dream ticket for the Democrats in Newsom for President and AOC as his VP. Newson, tall white straight male, is type cast for the role of President. Trump would approve. Newsom will appeal to information poor independents just on his appearance alone. So he can widen the net.
AOC, on the other hand, will get out the vote of core Democrats, particularly the young. With Newsom leading strategy, and providing reassurance on AOC, they would make a formidable team. I don't think this will emerge until after the midterms, but I would put money on it.
A California with New York ego ticket is far from ideal.
And Newsom would have to explain this in any Presidential election:
California will welcome the new year by becoming the first state to offer health insurance for all undocumented immigrants.
I'm not sure that voters in Arizona or Michigan who are struggling to pay their own health premiums will be happy to pay extra tax so that illegal immigrants get free health care.
Well done! I think you managed every Fox News anti-Dem trope in 5 short paragraphs.
I admit to a dilemma of sorts on this - there's part of me that says there are only two coherent positions - legalisation or prohibition. In other words, define what drugs are or should be acceptable and legalise them and for all others complete prohibition.
The other side of this is the longer term impacts of drug abuse which seem as cumulative and damage as long term alcohol abuse but nobody suggests we ban alcohol (though I note consumption is falling).
The trouble is the debate gets shut down before it starts but the truth is we cannot resource a wholly prohibitive stance - we know people take illegal substances and become addicted to them. As an aside, there's also the not inconsiderable issue of addiction to prescription medication such as painkillers and tranquillisers which is rarely discussed.
The fall in alcohol drinkers is quite sharp. End of 2024, 19% of Brits hadn't drunk alcohol all year. By the end of last year, that was at 24% - almost 1 in 4 not touching alcohol.
Seems not to be such a big thing with Da Yoof. Although, with his pewter tankard behind the bar of his local, Farage (and his MAGA chums) will probably point to it being proof of the Islamification of Britain...
Annual deaths in the UK:
From smoking 80,000 From alcohol 10,000 From heroin 1,500
The debate on legalising drugs is highly emotional. "Heroin - oh my god!!" That's why, above, I suggested a rational framework.
Professor David Nutt, Chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, was fired in 2009 by then Home Secretary Alan Johnson, for taking an evidence-based approach to drug classification.
He published a lecture stating that alcohol and tobacco were more harmful than many illegal drugs, including LSD, ecstasy, and cannabis. He also publicly criticised the government's decision to reclassify cannabis from Class C back to Class B, arguing the move was politically motivated and not supported by scientific evidence.
Finally In a research paper, Nutt compared the risks of taking ecstasy to the risks of horse riding (which he termed "equasy"), arguing that the latter was statistically more dangerous.
Meanwhile cocaine is sniffed in the toilets of parliament. There is a lot of hypocrisy in the debate on legalising drugs. I'm glad that Polanski is up front about it. The more I hear him, the more I admire him.
What is the deaths in terms of percentage of users and how is the alcohol and smoking one measured. Often these stats include all sorts of indirect conditions.
I hate to say this (in some ways) but there is a chance Skyr Toolmakersson might be saved by a brisk upswing in the global economy. Technology of all kinds is now rapidly transforming economies (even technologies as relatively trivial as weight loss drugs). See the productivity miracle unfolding in Trump’s America, now being echoed in the UK (after decades of drift)
I remember we used to say Starmer was a “lucky general”. We don’t any more
However, we may be forced to disinter the phrase if the UK goes into a mini-boom alongside other advanced economies. This worst and most depressing of prime ministers might actually get a second term. God ‘elp us
On the other hand it means the Republicans are equally likely to win again in 2028 if America booms (and their boom will be bigger than ours)
So, swings and roundabouts
Don't worry, we all know the golden rule. Weak economy, Labour's fault. Strong economy, nothing to do with Labour.
No, it’s all the Tories fault. That’s the default.
Anyway if the economy picks up and we get decent growth hardly anyone will care about such stuff.
Most of us will just be pleased and if labour reap the rewards so be it. I’ll just say I knew I was right to vote for them.
I hate to say this (in some ways) but there is a chance Skyr Toolmakersson might be saved by a brisk upswing in the global economy. Technology of all kinds is now rapidly transforming economies (even technologies as relatively trivial as weight loss drugs). See the productivity miracle unfolding in Trump’s America, now being echoed in the UK (after decades of drift)
I remember we used to say Starmer was a “lucky general”. We don’t any more
However, we may be forced to disinter the phrase if the UK goes into a mini-boom alongside other advanced economies. This worst and most depressing of prime ministers might actually get a second term. God ‘elp us
On the other hand it means the Republicans are equally likely to win again in 2028 if America booms (and their boom will be bigger than ours)
So, swings and roundabouts
Don't worry, we all know the golden rule. Weak economy, Labour's fault. Strong economy, nothing to do with Labour.
Jeez, I’m saying positive things - albeit with a grimace - about this Labour govt and its future chances. Take the W
I am taking the W - my face is reflecting that as I type - but I've decided to make that sarcastic supplementary point.
You're already pitchrolling by saying the upswing will not be UK specific and will be mainly due to external factors, ie luck. That happens to be correct. But when it comes to poor economic news it's straight out of the gate with "Labour are shit, Reeves is clueless" bla di bla. Not just you, tbf, this is a pretty widespread (bad) habit on the unthinking partisan right.
The hopeless, hapless Stride was on LBC the other evening claiming again that Labour have squandered the golden legacy they inherited. Now I suspect we are all disappointed in this Government and Starmer in particular, but they inherited a golden legacy? Lies, damned lies and dodgy statistics.
These are not abstract arguments - we are just about intelligent enough to make reasonable adjustments on cause and effect. If Reeves and Starmer implement a policy that bears fruit, we should certainly say so. If there's a general upturn in the world economy and the UK economy benefits, should we give them a gold star and a jaffa cake through some spurious notion of political fairness? I did have a chuckle over 'unthinking right' though - that's projection if ever I saw it.
*Edit, Mel Stride is rubbish though. Why do we need a bargain basement Jeremy Hunt apologist when we could just have Jeremy Hunt?
I see the odds on Vance and Newsom as next President are converging towards 4.4. Vance is lengthening. Newsom is shortening. At the moment they are the only two in the race. Rubio and AOC are a fairly distant 3rd and 4th.
I think the dream ticket for the Democrats in Newsom for President and AOC as his VP. Newson, tall white straight male, is type cast for the role of President. Trump would approve. Newsom will appeal to information poor independents just on his appearance alone. So he can widen the net.
AOC, on the other hand, will get out the vote of core Democrats, particularly the young. With Newsom leading strategy, and providing reassurance on AOC, they would make a formidable team. I don't think this will emerge until after the midterms, but I would put money on it.
A California with New York ego ticket is far from ideal.
And Newsom would have to explain this in any Presidential election:
California will welcome the new year by becoming the first state to offer health insurance for all undocumented immigrants.
I'm not sure that voters in Arizona or Michigan who are struggling to pay their own health premiums will be happy to pay extra tax so that illegal immigrants get free health care.
The primary voters need to understand that they’re winning CA and NY anyway, their candidates need to appeal to the swing states that actually decide who wins.
Newsom is a snake who appears to believe in nothing except holding power. AOC is at least honest even if IMHO misguided.
They really need to look instead to Sens and Govs from the middle of the country, who understand the people who live there. Who is the Dem JD Vance, with a compelling story to tell?
I see the odds on Vance and Newsom as next President are converging towards 4.4. Vance is lengthening. Newsom is shortening. At the moment they are the only two in the race. Rubio and AOC are a fairly distant 3rd and 4th.
I think the dream ticket for the Democrats in Newsom for President and AOC as his VP. Newson, tall white straight male, is type cast for the role of President. Trump would approve. Newsom will appeal to information poor independents just on his appearance alone. So he can widen the net.
AOC, on the other hand, will get out the vote of core Democrats, particularly the young. With Newsom leading strategy, and providing reassurance on AOC, they would make a formidable team. I don't think this will emerge until after the midterms, but I would put money on it.
A California with New York ego ticket is far from ideal.
And Newsom would have to explain this in any Presidential election:
California will welcome the new year by becoming the first state to offer health insurance for all undocumented immigrants.
I'm not sure that voters in Arizona or Michigan who are struggling to pay their own health premiums will be happy to pay extra tax so that illegal immigrants get free health care.
The primary voters need to understand that they’re winning CA and NY anyway, their candidates need to appeal to the swing states that actually decide who wins.
Newsom is a snake who appears to believe in nothing except holding power. AOC is at least honest even if IMHO misguided.
They really need to look instead to Sens and Govs from the middle of the country, who understand the people who live there. Who is the Dem JD Vance, with a compelling story to tell?
So you are saying that Newsom is a standard issue Western politician?
Has Starmer really though through his statement that Andrew M-W should assist the US authorities?
Not opposed to this if the US authorities require this.
But if Andrew should answer questions then so should Peter Mandelson who appears to have -
- lied about his knowledge of Epstein's behaviour; - received money from a man involved in and convicted of sex trafficking (why?); - used Epstein as some sort of adviser on government deals (why?), - failed to be transparent about any of this to the relevant Parliamentary and Cabinet bodies
and who for part of this period was a senior member of the government and later U.K. ambassador to the US.
IMO the questions for Mandelson are just as serious and they are ones which ought to be asked by the authorities here. He is still a member of the legislature here.
I think distinction is that the DOJ and Congress have requested information/interview with Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor but they haven't for Lord Mandelson.
I'm genuinely surprised that Mandelson has enough money to come to an arrangement with the DoJ but Andy doesn't.
Andy blew all his cash on silencing (no, no, I meant paying off) Virginia Roberts.
Keeping on the subject of "It's the economy, stupid" if we are to presume that Trump won't go peacefully and IMHO there will be years of appeals to the Supreme Court, what about the UK economy. Conventional wisdom is that if the US is disrupted, the effects will be felt here. Also if we have a hung parliament, or a Reform government with a small minority, what happens to the economy in a) responding to the US and b) sort out our own economic sh*t.
Doesn't bode well even if Reform are left with a "golden legacy". Should we all follow Tice and @Sandpit to Dubai?
I see the odds on Vance and Newsom as next President are converging towards 4.4. Vance is lengthening. Newsom is shortening. At the moment they are the only two in the race. Rubio and AOC are a fairly distant 3rd and 4th.
I think the dream ticket for the Democrats in Newsom for President and AOC as his VP. Newson, tall white straight male, is type cast for the role of President. Trump would approve. Newsom will appeal to information poor independents just on his appearance alone. So he can widen the net.
AOC, on the other hand, will get out the vote of core Democrats, particularly the young. With Newsom leading strategy, and providing reassurance on AOC, they would make a formidable team. I don't think this will emerge until after the midterms, but I would put money on it.
A California with New York ego ticket is far from ideal.
And Newsom would have to explain this in any Presidential election:
California will welcome the new year by becoming the first state to offer health insurance for all undocumented immigrants.
I'm not sure that voters in Arizona or Michigan who are struggling to pay their own health premiums will be happy to pay extra tax so that illegal immigrants get free health care.
The primary voters need to understand that they’re winning CA and NY anyway, their candidates need to appeal to the swing states that actually decide who wins.
Newsom is a snake who appears to believe in nothing except holding power. AOC is at least honest even if IMHO misguided.
They really need to look instead to Sens and Govs from the middle of the country, who understand the people who live there. Who is the Dem JD Vance, with a compelling story to tell?
So you are saying that Newsom is a standard issue Western politician?
Most standard issue Western politicians at least have an underlying belief in something, of making the world a better place. We may agree with them or disagreee with them, but that’s politics and the predominant view among the electorate takes the win.
This guy changes his mind like the wind, he doesn’t believe in anything at all and will give totally opposite answers to the same question days apart.
I see the odds on Vance and Newsom as next President are converging towards 4.4. Vance is lengthening. Newsom is shortening. At the moment they are the only two in the race. Rubio and AOC are a fairly distant 3rd and 4th.
I think the dream ticket for the Democrats in Newsom for President and AOC as his VP. Newson, tall white straight male, is type cast for the role of President. Trump would approve. Newsom will appeal to information poor independents just on his appearance alone. So he can widen the net.
AOC, on the other hand, will get out the vote of core Democrats, particularly the young. With Newsom leading strategy, and providing reassurance on AOC, they would make a formidable team. I don't think this will emerge until after the midterms, but I would put money on it.
A California with New York ego ticket is far from ideal.
And Newsom would have to explain this in any Presidential election:
California will welcome the new year by becoming the first state to offer health insurance for all undocumented immigrants.
I'm not sure that voters in Arizona or Michigan who are struggling to pay their own health premiums will be happy to pay extra tax so that illegal immigrants get free health care.
The primary voters need to understand that they’re winning CA and NY anyway, their candidates need to appeal to the swing states that actually decide who wins.
Newsom is a snake who appears to believe in nothing except holding power. AOC is at least honest even if IMHO misguided.
They really need to look instead to Sens and Govs from the middle of the country, who understand the people who live there. Who is the Dem JD Vance, with a compelling story to tell?
Most of the early primaries aren't rock solid Democrat anyway eg Iowa and South Carolina and Michigan and Nevada all voted for Trump, New Hampshire voted for Harris but isn't deep blue and indeed voted for Bush in 2000
I hate to say this (in some ways) but there is a chance Skyr Toolmakersson might be saved by a brisk upswing in the global economy. Technology of all kinds is now rapidly transforming economies (even technologies as relatively trivial as weight loss drugs). See the productivity miracle unfolding in Trump’s America, now being echoed in the UK (after decades of drift)
I remember we used to say Starmer was a “lucky general”. We don’t any more
However, we may be forced to disinter the phrase if the UK goes into a mini-boom alongside other advanced economies. This worst and most depressing of prime ministers might actually get a second term. God ‘elp us
On the other hand it means the Republicans are equally likely to win again in 2028 if America booms (and their boom will be bigger than ours)
So, swings and roundabouts
Don't worry, we all know the golden rule. Weak economy, Labour's fault. Strong economy, nothing to do with Labour.
No, it’s all the Tories fault. That’s the default.
Anyway if the economy picks up and we get decent growth hardly anyone will care about such stuff.
Most of us will just be pleased and if labour reap the rewards so be it. I’ll just say I knew I was right to vote for them.
Keeping on the subject of "It's the economy, stupid" if we are to presume that Trump won't go peacefully and IMHO there will be years of appeals to the Supreme Court, what about the UK economy. Conventional wisdom is that if the US is disrupted, the effects will be felt here. Also if we have a hung parliament, or a Reform government with a small minority, what happens to the economy in a) responding to the US and b) sort out our own economic sh*t.
Doesn't bode well even if Reform are left with a "golden legacy". Should we all follow Tice and @Sandpit to Dubai?
It’s getting crowded here, rents are up as the population is rising faster than they can build houses.
I see the odds on Vance and Newsom as next President are converging towards 4.4. Vance is lengthening. Newsom is shortening. At the moment they are the only two in the race. Rubio and AOC are a fairly distant 3rd and 4th.
I think the dream ticket for the Democrats in Newsom for President and AOC as his VP. Newson, tall white straight male, is type cast for the role of President. Trump would approve. Newsom will appeal to information poor independents just on his appearance alone. So he can widen the net.
AOC, on the other hand, will get out the vote of core Democrats, particularly the young. With Newsom leading strategy, and providing reassurance on AOC, they would make a formidable team. I don't think this will emerge until after the midterms, but I would put money on it.
A California with New York ego ticket is far from ideal.
And Newsom would have to explain this in any Presidential election:
California will welcome the new year by becoming the first state to offer health insurance for all undocumented immigrants.
I'm not sure that voters in Arizona or Michigan who are struggling to pay their own health premiums will be happy to pay extra tax so that illegal immigrants get free health care.
The primary voters need to understand that they’re winning CA and NY anyway, their candidates need to appeal to the swing states that actually decide who wins.
Newsom is a snake who appears to believe in nothing except holding power. AOC is at least honest even if IMHO misguided.
They really need to look instead to Sens and Govs from the middle of the country, who understand the people who live there. Who is the Dem JD Vance, with a compelling story to tell?
So you are saying that Newsom is a standard issue Western politician?
Most standard issue Western politicians at least have an underlying belief in something, of making the world a better place. We may agree with them or disagreee with them, but that’s politics and the predominant view among the electorate takes the win.
This guy changes his mind like the wind, he doesn’t believe in anything at all and will give totally opposite answers to the same question days apart.
Newsom is a very flawed character and probably not a particularly nice chap. However compared the the clown car presidency that you fly the flag for on here I suspect most would consider it a great improvement.
I see the odds on Vance and Newsom as next President are converging towards 4.4. Vance is lengthening. Newsom is shortening. At the moment they are the only two in the race. Rubio and AOC are a fairly distant 3rd and 4th.
I think the dream ticket for the Democrats in Newsom for President and AOC as his VP. Newson, tall white straight male, is type cast for the role of President. Trump would approve. Newsom will appeal to information poor independents just on his appearance alone. So he can widen the net.
AOC, on the other hand, will get out the vote of core Democrats, particularly the young. With Newsom leading strategy, and providing reassurance on AOC, they would make a formidable team. I don't think this will emerge until after the midterms, but I would put money on it.
A California with New York ego ticket is far from ideal.
And Newsom would have to explain this in any Presidential election:
California will welcome the new year by becoming the first state to offer health insurance for all undocumented immigrants.
I'm not sure that voters in Arizona or Michigan who are struggling to pay their own health premiums will be happy to pay extra tax so that illegal immigrants get free health care.
The primary voters need to understand that they’re winning CA and NY anyway, their candidates need to appeal to the swing states that actually decide who wins.
Newsom is a snake who appears to believe in nothing except holding power. AOC is at least honest even if IMHO misguided.
They really need to look instead to Sens and Govs from the middle of the country, who understand the people who live there. Who is the Dem JD Vance, with a compelling story to tell?
So you are saying that Newsom is a standard issue Western politician?
Most standard issue Western politicians at least have an underlying belief in something, of making the world a better place. We may agree with them or disagreee with them, but that’s politics and the predominant view among the electorate takes the win.
This guy changes his mind like the wind, he doesn’t believe in anything at all and will give totally opposite answers to the same question days apart.
Are you going to tell us next that Trump is the model of consistency and has a dedicated underlying belief in a particular philosophy?
My sense is that there's definitely a market for a raging opportunist/careerist for the Dems.
I've noticed that it has become common for people (usually Labour fans) to claim that @FindOutNowUK ranks Reform UK as massively higher in polls than every single other pollster.
This is objectively false. It is simply not true. Majority of pollsters have Reform on 30% or above
I see the odds on Vance and Newsom as next President are converging towards 4.4. Vance is lengthening. Newsom is shortening. At the moment they are the only two in the race. Rubio and AOC are a fairly distant 3rd and 4th.
I think the dream ticket for the Democrats in Newsom for President and AOC as his VP. Newson, tall white straight male, is type cast for the role of President. Trump would approve. Newsom will appeal to information poor independents just on his appearance alone. So he can widen the net.
AOC, on the other hand, will get out the vote of core Democrats, particularly the young. With Newsom leading strategy, and providing reassurance on AOC, they would make a formidable team. I don't think this will emerge until after the midterms, but I would put money on it.
A California with New York ego ticket is far from ideal.
And Newsom would have to explain this in any Presidential election:
California will welcome the new year by becoming the first state to offer health insurance for all undocumented immigrants.
I'm not sure that voters in Arizona or Michigan who are struggling to pay their own health premiums will be happy to pay extra tax so that illegal immigrants get free health care.
The primary voters need to understand that they’re winning CA and NY anyway, their candidates need to appeal to the swing states that actually decide who wins.
Newsom is a snake who appears to believe in nothing except holding power. AOC is at least honest even if IMHO misguided.
They really need to look instead to Sens and Govs from the middle of the country, who understand the people who live there. Who is the Dem JD Vance, with a compelling story to tell?
So you are saying that Newsom is a standard issue Western politician?
Most standard issue Western politicians at least have an underlying belief in something, of making the world a better place. We may agree with them or disagreee with them, but that’s politics and the predominant view among the electorate takes the win.
This guy changes his mind like the wind, he doesn’t believe in anything at all and will give totally opposite answers to the same question days apart.
must be doing something right to get a unified line from the trump adjacent to use against him mind.
I hate to say this (in some ways) but there is a chance Skyr Toolmakersson might be saved by a brisk upswing in the global economy. Technology of all kinds is now rapidly transforming economies (even technologies as relatively trivial as weight loss drugs). See the productivity miracle unfolding in Trump’s America, now being echoed in the UK (after decades of drift)
I remember we used to say Starmer was a “lucky general”. We don’t any more
However, we may be forced to disinter the phrase if the UK goes into a mini-boom alongside other advanced economies. This worst and most depressing of prime ministers might actually get a second term. God ‘elp us
On the other hand it means the Republicans are equally likely to win again in 2028 if America booms (and their boom will be bigger than ours)
So, swings and roundabouts
Major wasn't forgiven, and his 90s economy did far better than Starmer's will ever do.
Yeah, but by 97 the Tories had been in power for 18 years. Major defied gravity by winning in 92.
"Pakistan will boycott their Group A game against India at the 2026 T20 World Cup. A post issued by the Government of Pakistan's official X account said the government had granted permission to the Pakistan team to travel to Sri Lanka for the tournament. However, it said that "the Pakistan cricket team shall not take the field in the match scheduled on 15 February 2026 against India".
The statement did not specify a reason for that decision. The full post on X was as follows: "The Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan grants approval to the Pakistan Cricket Team to participate in the ICC World T20 2026, however, the Pakistan Cricket Team shall not take the field in the match scheduled on 15th February 2026 against India." It is understood the PCB is yet to write to the ICC informing them of the boycott."
Andrew is damned by the fact that he paid £12m in damages to Victoria Giuffre. An innocent man would not have done so.
To be pedantic, he didn’t pay it. Brenda wouldn’t have paid it and Charlie wouldn’t have okayed it if they thought Andrew was innocent.
Paying to make legal nuisances go away is not that uncommon (and what I mean is that I've seen it twice and IANAL). Even in the criminal world, arguably the American plea deal system works on that basis, as do our incentives to plead guilty or accept a caution.
Had the sum been £50,000, I’d accept the nuisance value argument.
I see the odds on Vance and Newsom as next President are converging towards 4.4. Vance is lengthening. Newsom is shortening. At the moment they are the only two in the race. Rubio and AOC are a fairly distant 3rd and 4th.
I think the dream ticket for the Democrats in Newsom for President and AOC as his VP. Newson, tall white straight male, is type cast for the role of President. Trump would approve. Newsom will appeal to information poor independents just on his appearance alone. So he can widen the net.
AOC, on the other hand, will get out the vote of core Democrats, particularly the young. With Newsom leading strategy, and providing reassurance on AOC, they would make a formidable team. I don't think this will emerge until after the midterms, but I would put money on it.
A California with New York ego ticket is far from ideal.
And Newsom would have to explain this in any Presidential election:
California will welcome the new year by becoming the first state to offer health insurance for all undocumented immigrants.
I'm not sure that voters in Arizona or Michigan who are struggling to pay their own health premiums will be happy to pay extra tax so that illegal immigrants get free health care.
The primary voters need to understand that they’re winning CA and NY anyway, their candidates need to appeal to the swing states that actually decide who wins.
Newsom is a snake who appears to believe in nothing except holding power. AOC is at least honest even if IMHO misguided.
They really need to look instead to Sens and Govs from the middle of the country, who understand the people who live there. Who is the Dem JD Vance, with a compelling story to tell?
So you are saying that Newsom is a standard issue Western politician?
Most standard issue Western politicians at least have an underlying belief in something, of making the world a better place. We may agree with them or disagreee with them, but that’s politics and the predominant view among the electorate takes the win.
This guy changes his mind like the wind, he doesn’t believe in anything at all and will give totally opposite answers to the same question days apart.
Newsom is a very flawed character and probably not a particularly nice chap. However compared the the clown car presidency that you fly the flag for on here I suspect most would consider it a great improvement.
Some advantages of Newsom
- not obviously addled brain - not many political convictions - not many criminal convictions - sense of humour - low count on number of attempt to overthrow the government - etc
Has Starmer really though through his statement that Andrew M-W should assist the US authorities?
Not opposed to this if the US authorities require this.
But if Andrew should answer questions then so should Peter Mandelson who appears to have -
- lied about his knowledge of Epstein's behaviour; - received money from a man involved in and convicted of sex trafficking (why?); - used Epstein as some sort of adviser on government deals (why?), - failed to be transparent about any of this to the relevant Parliamentary and Cabinet bodies
and who for part of this period was a senior member of the government and later U.K. ambassador to the US.
IMO the questions for Mandelson are just as serious and they are ones which ought to be asked by the authorities here. He is still a member of the legislature here.
Has Starmer really though through his statement that Andrew M-W should assist the US authorities?
Not opposed to this if the US authorities require this.
But if Andrew should answer questions then so should Peter Mandelson who appears to have -
- lied about his knowledge of Epstein's behaviour; - received money from a man involved in and convicted of sex trafficking (why?); - used Epstein as some sort of adviser on government deals (why?), - failed to be transparent about any of this to the relevant Parliamentary and Cabinet bodies
and who for part of this period was a senior member of the government and later U.K. ambassador to the US.
IMO the questions for Mandelson are just as serious and they are ones which ought to be asked by the authorities here. He is still a member of the legislature here.
I think Mandelson is in deep shit.
You wonder if his irrepressible self belief and rhinoceros hide is even now telling him that he’ll get through this.
I see the odds on Vance and Newsom as next President are converging towards 4.4. Vance is lengthening. Newsom is shortening. At the moment they are the only two in the race. Rubio and AOC are a fairly distant 3rd and 4th.
I think the dream ticket for the Democrats in Newsom for President and AOC as his VP. Newson, tall white straight male, is type cast for the role of President. Trump would approve. Newsom will appeal to information poor independents just on his appearance alone. So he can widen the net.
AOC, on the other hand, will get out the vote of core Democrats, particularly the young. With Newsom leading strategy, and providing reassurance on AOC, they would make a formidable team. I don't think this will emerge until after the midterms, but I would put money on it.
A California with New York ego ticket is far from ideal.
And Newsom would have to explain this in any Presidential election:
California will welcome the new year by becoming the first state to offer health insurance for all undocumented immigrants.
I'm not sure that voters in Arizona or Michigan who are struggling to pay their own health premiums will be happy to pay extra tax so that illegal immigrants get free health care.
The primary voters need to understand that they’re winning CA and NY anyway, their candidates need to appeal to the swing states that actually decide who wins.
Newsom is a snake who appears to believe in nothing except holding power. AOC is at least honest even if IMHO misguided.
They really need to look instead to Sens and Govs from the middle of the country, who understand the people who live there. Who is the Dem JD Vance, with a compelling story to tell?
So you are saying that Newsom is a standard issue Western politician?
Most standard issue Western politicians at least have an underlying belief in something, of making the world a better place. We may agree with them or disagreee with them, but that’s politics and the predominant view among the electorate takes the win.
This guy changes his mind like the wind, he doesn’t believe in anything at all and will give totally opposite answers to the same question days apart.
must be doing something right to get a unified line from the trump adjacent to use against him mind.
On the contrary, the likes of Newsom or AOC getting nominated would be a gift to the Republicans.
"Pakistan will boycott their Group A game against India at the 2026 T20 World Cup. A post issued by the Government of Pakistan's official X account said the government had granted permission to the Pakistan team to travel to Sri Lanka for the tournament. However, it said that "the Pakistan cricket team shall not take the field in the match scheduled on 15 February 2026 against India".
The statement did not specify a reason for that decision. The full post on X was as follows: "The Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan grants approval to the Pakistan Cricket Team to participate in the ICC World T20 2026, however, the Pakistan Cricket Team shall not take the field in the match scheduled on 15th February 2026 against India." It is understood the PCB is yet to write to the ICC informing them of the boycott."
Ball in the ICC’s court now.
Do they ban Pakistan from the tournament, move the match to a neutral venue, or give India the win with a fine for Pakistan for the lost revenue?
I’m in favour of the middle option, but only because I live in the most obvious neutral venue and could probably get tickets to watch it!
"Pakistan will boycott their Group A game against India at the 2026 T20 World Cup. A post issued by the Government of Pakistan's official X account said the government had granted permission to the Pakistan team to travel to Sri Lanka for the tournament. However, it said that "the Pakistan cricket team shall not take the field in the match scheduled on 15 February 2026 against India".
The statement did not specify a reason for that decision. The full post on X was as follows: "The Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan grants approval to the Pakistan Cricket Team to participate in the ICC World T20 2026, however, the Pakistan Cricket Team shall not take the field in the match scheduled on 15th February 2026 against India." It is understood the PCB is yet to write to the ICC informing them of the boycott."
Ball in the ICC’s court now.
Do they ban Pakistan from the tournament, move the match to a neutral venue, or give India the win with a fine for Pakistan for the lost revenue?
I’m in favour of the middle option, but only because I live in the most obvious neutral venue and could probably get tickets to watch it!
Given how they treated Bangladesh how can they not ban Pakistan ?
I could read John Harris all day. But he has been telling this story for ten years, and the gulf between Labour and those whom it once represented has git wider and wider. Only one geographic criticism - peculiar to call Gorton tge 'outer' edge of the constituency, what with it being less outer than Denton, in relation to Central Manchster.
Bottom line: it ain't going to be Labour winning here.
Has Starmer really though through his statement that Andrew M-W should assist the US authorities?
Not opposed to this if the US authorities require this.
But if Andrew should answer questions then so should Peter Mandelson who appears to have -
- lied about his knowledge of Epstein's behaviour; - received money from a man involved in and convicted of sex trafficking (why?); - used Epstein as some sort of adviser on government deals (why?), - failed to be transparent about any of this to the relevant Parliamentary and Cabinet bodies
and who for part of this period was a senior member of the government and later U.K. ambassador to the US.
IMO the questions for Mandelson are just as serious and they are ones which ought to be asked by the authorities here. He is still a member of the legislature here.
I think distinction is that the DOJ and Congress have requested information/interview with Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor but they haven't for Lord Mandelson.
You are missing the point. The people who need to ask questions of Mandelson are in the U.K.
HMRC, for instance, about the so-called 'loan' to Mandelson's husband. All the issues I have identified above relate to the U.K.. He is a member of our legislature. He has more power and influence than Andrew.
There is a real danger here - as in, for instance, the Post Office scandal - of focusing all the anger and disgust on one useful scapegoat and the others equally responsible get ignored. This should not be allowed to happen. Mandelson is meant to be intelligent; just as Jes Staley was and Bill Gates and others and yet all of them, including Andrew, have behaved like utter duplicitous scumbags.
No, is the answer to whether Starmer has thought this through.
I see the odds on Vance and Newsom as next President are converging towards 4.4. Vance is lengthening. Newsom is shortening. At the moment they are the only two in the race. Rubio and AOC are a fairly distant 3rd and 4th.
I think the dream ticket for the Democrats in Newsom for President and AOC as his VP. Newson, tall white straight male, is type cast for the role of President. Trump would approve. Newsom will appeal to information poor independents just on his appearance alone. So he can widen the net.
AOC, on the other hand, will get out the vote of core Democrats, particularly the young. With Newsom leading strategy, and providing reassurance on AOC, they would make a formidable team. I don't think this will emerge until after the midterms, but I would put money on it.
A California with New York ego ticket is far from ideal.
And Newsom would have to explain this in any Presidential election:
California will welcome the new year by becoming the first state to offer health insurance for all undocumented immigrants.
I'm not sure that voters in Arizona or Michigan who are struggling to pay their own health premiums will be happy to pay extra tax so that illegal immigrants get free health care.
The primary voters need to understand that they’re winning CA and NY anyway, their candidates need to appeal to the swing states that actually decide who wins.
Newsom is a snake who appears to believe in nothing except holding power. AOC is at least honest even if IMHO misguided.
They really need to look instead to Sens and Govs from the middle of the country, who understand the people who live there. Who is the Dem JD Vance, with a compelling story to tell?
So you are saying that Newsom is a standard issue Western politician?
Most standard issue Western politicians at least have an underlying belief in something, of making the world a better place. We may agree with them or disagreee with them, but that’s politics and the predominant view among the electorate takes the win.
This guy changes his mind like the wind, he doesn’t believe in anything at all and will give totally opposite answers to the same question days apart.
must be doing something right to get a unified line from the trump adjacent to use against him mind.
On the contrary, the likes of Newsom or AOC getting nominated would be a gift to the Republicans.
They need a younger version of Joe Biden.
The idea that California Kamala needed to balance the ticket by absorbing Coach Walz from the Midwest didn't hit the spot.
Some are questioning why Andrew is not being questioned by the police over yesterday's revelations as trafficking is a criminal offence
I expect there will be increasing demands for the police to become involved with Andrew
He would have to have known the woman was trafficked, he did not do the trafficking himself, that was Epstein and Maxwell who have already been convicted and jailed (or would have been in the former case)
Which allows me to mention this point again. Maxwell, convicted sex trafficker, has British, French and USA nationality. Why has there been no move to strip her of her British nationality?
Because stripping people of their nationality hasn’t, up till now, been used as an extra-judicial punishment. But as an operational end run around the human rights laws, to exile people who are considered dangerous.
Consider the fun a Reform government will have with the ability to cancel citizenship and (presumably) the right to live in the U.K.
Anyone with an offensive wife or who wears a loud shirt in a built up area will be on Ze List, probably.
Okay. So everyone's angry. Very angry. They don't know precisely why they're angry nor what precisely to do about it, but angry they are. Very angry in fact. Yes, for sure. They are angry.
Worst result for the Republicans in a Texas special election seat since 1991.
Suggests that the November elections will be decided by differential turnout. The magnitude of thaf effect will likely trump any switching by the persuadables.
Worst result for the Republicans in a Texas special election seat since 1991.
Suggests that the November elections will be decided by differential turnout. The magnitude of thaf effect will likely trump any switching by the persuadables.
Harold Wilson said "a week is a long time in politics". On PB from one thread to the next is an eternity. I am reading that the economy has upturned and on the Starmer-Reeves watch.
I missed it myself but thanks everyone for the heads up.
I see the odds on Vance and Newsom as next President are converging towards 4.4. Vance is lengthening. Newsom is shortening. At the moment they are the only two in the race. Rubio and AOC are a fairly distant 3rd and 4th.
I think the dream ticket for the Democrats in Newsom for President and AOC as his VP. Newson, tall white straight male, is type cast for the role of President. Trump would approve. Newsom will appeal to information poor independents just on his appearance alone. So he can widen the net.
AOC, on the other hand, will get out the vote of core Democrats, particularly the young. With Newsom leading strategy, and providing reassurance on AOC, they would make a formidable team. I don't think this will emerge until after the midterms, but I would put money on it.
A California with New York ego ticket is far from ideal.
And Newsom would have to explain this in any Presidential election:
California will welcome the new year by becoming the first state to offer health insurance for all undocumented immigrants.
I'm not sure that voters in Arizona or Michigan who are struggling to pay their own health premiums will be happy to pay extra tax so that illegal immigrants get free health care.
The primary voters need to understand that they’re winning CA and NY anyway, their candidates need to appeal to the swing states that actually decide who wins.
Newsom is a snake who appears to believe in nothing except holding power. AOC is at least honest even if IMHO misguided.
They really need to look instead to Sens and Govs from the middle of the country, who understand the people who live there. Who is the Dem JD Vance, with a compelling story to tell?
So you are saying that Newsom is a standard issue Western politician?
Most standard issue Western politicians at least have an underlying belief in something, of making the world a better place. We may agree with them or disagreee with them, but that’s politics and the predominant view among the electorate takes the win.
This guy changes his mind like the wind, he doesn’t believe in anything at all and will give totally opposite answers to the same question days apart.
must be doing something right to get a unified line from the trump adjacent to use against him mind.
On the contrary, the likes of Newsom or AOC getting nominated would be a gift to the Republicans.
I see the odds on Vance and Newsom as next President are converging towards 4.4. Vance is lengthening. Newsom is shortening. At the moment they are the only two in the race. Rubio and AOC are a fairly distant 3rd and 4th.
I think the dream ticket for the Democrats in Newsom for President and AOC as his VP. Newson, tall white straight male, is type cast for the role of President. Trump would approve. Newsom will appeal to information poor independents just on his appearance alone. So he can widen the net.
AOC, on the other hand, will get out the vote of core Democrats, particularly the young. With Newsom leading strategy, and providing reassurance on AOC, they would make a formidable team. I don't think this will emerge until after the midterms, but I would put money on it.
A California with New York ego ticket is far from ideal.
And Newsom would have to explain this in any Presidential election:
California will welcome the new year by becoming the first state to offer health insurance for all undocumented immigrants.
I'm not sure that voters in Arizona or Michigan who are struggling to pay their own health premiums will be happy to pay extra tax so that illegal immigrants get free health care.
The primary voters need to understand that they’re winning CA and NY anyway, their candidates need to appeal to the swing states that actually decide who wins.
Newsom is a snake who appears to believe in nothing except holding power. AOC is at least honest even if IMHO misguided.
They really need to look instead to Sens and Govs from the middle of the country, who understand the people who live there. Who is the Dem JD Vance, with a compelling story to tell?
So you are saying that Newsom is a standard issue Western politician?
Most standard issue Western politicians at least have an underlying belief in something, of making the world a better place. We may agree with them or disagreee with them, but that’s politics and the predominant view among the electorate takes the win.
This guy changes his mind like the wind, he doesn’t believe in anything at all and will give totally opposite answers to the same question days apart.
must be doing something right to get a unified line from the trump adjacent to use against him mind.
On the contrary, the likes of Newsom or AOC getting nominated would be a gift to the Republicans.
They need a younger version of Joe Biden.
Does one exist?
Adam Schiff? Jamie Raskin? No, I'll stick with Newsom.
I see the odds on Vance and Newsom as next President are converging towards 4.4. Vance is lengthening. Newsom is shortening. At the moment they are the only two in the race. Rubio and AOC are a fairly distant 3rd and 4th.
I think the dream ticket for the Democrats in Newsom for President and AOC as his VP. Newson, tall white straight male, is type cast for the role of President. Trump would approve. Newsom will appeal to information poor independents just on his appearance alone. So he can widen the net.
AOC, on the other hand, will get out the vote of core Democrats, particularly the young. With Newsom leading strategy, and providing reassurance on AOC, they would make a formidable team. I don't think this will emerge until after the midterms, but I would put money on it.
A California with New York ego ticket is far from ideal.
And Newsom would have to explain this in any Presidential election:
California will welcome the new year by becoming the first state to offer health insurance for all undocumented immigrants.
I'm not sure that voters in Arizona or Michigan who are struggling to pay their own health premiums will be happy to pay extra tax so that illegal immigrants get free health care.
The primary voters need to understand that they’re winning CA and NY anyway, their candidates need to appeal to the swing states that actually decide who wins.
Newsom is a snake who appears to believe in nothing except holding power. AOC is at least honest even if IMHO misguided.
They really need to look instead to Sens and Govs from the middle of the country, who understand the people who live there. Who is the Dem JD Vance, with a compelling story to tell?
So you are saying that Newsom is a standard issue Western politician?
Most standard issue Western politicians at least have an underlying belief in something, of making the world a better place. We may agree with them or disagreee with them, but that’s politics and the predominant view among the electorate takes the win.
This guy changes his mind like the wind, he doesn’t believe in anything at all and will give totally opposite answers to the same question days apart.
And how is "compelling story*" Vance different from that description ?
*is that the one about the barbecued cats and dogs ?
Some are questioning why Andrew is not being questioned by the police over yesterday's revelations as trafficking is a criminal offence
I expect there will be increasing demands for the police to become involved with Andrew
He would have to have known the woman was trafficked, he did not do the trafficking himself, that was Epstein and Maxwell who have already been convicted and jailed (or would have been in the former case)
Which allows me to mention this point again. Maxwell, convicted sex trafficker, has British, French and USA nationality. Why has there been no move to strip her of her British nationality?
Because stripping people of their nationality hasn’t, up till now, been used as an extra-judicial punishment. But as an operational end run around the human rights laws, to exile people who are considered dangerous.
Consider the fun a Reform government will have with the ability to cancel citizenship and (presumably) the right to live in the U.K.
Anyone with an offensive wife or who wears a loud shirt in a built up area will be on Ze List, probably.
I don't like the future of Katie Hopkins and Andrea Jenkyns' husband then
Worst result for the Republicans in a Texas special election seat since 1991.
Suggests that the November elections will be decided by differential turnout. The magnitude of thaf effect will likely trump any switching by the persuadables.
Harold Wilson said "a week is a long time in politics". On PB from one thread to the next is an eternity. I am reading that the economy has upturned and on the Starmer-Reeves watch.
I missed it myself but thanks everyone for the heads up.
Myself and a couple of others made comments about this on Thursday, I think? Borrowing lower than expected in December, growth in retail in December if not over the quarter, PMIs a bit better without being incredible. It was definitely more positive.
Some are questioning why Andrew is not being questioned by the police over yesterday's revelations as trafficking is a criminal offence
I expect there will be increasing demands for the police to become involved with Andrew
He would have to have known the woman was trafficked, he did not do the trafficking himself, that was Epstein and Maxwell who have already been convicted and jailed (or would have been in the former case)
Which allows me to mention this point again. Maxwell, convicted sex trafficker, has British, French and USA nationality. Why has there been no move to strip her of her British nationality?
Because stripping people of their nationality hasn’t, up till now, been used as an extra-judicial punishment. But as an operational end run around the human rights laws, to exile people who are considered dangerous.
Consider the fun a Reform government will have with the ability to cancel citizenship and (presumably) the right to live in the U.K.
Anyone with an offensive wife or who wears a loud shirt in a built up area will be on Ze List, probably.
I don't like the future of Katie Hopkins and Andrea Jenkyns' husband then
I see the odds on Vance and Newsom as next President are converging towards 4.4. Vance is lengthening. Newsom is shortening. At the moment they are the only two in the race. Rubio and AOC are a fairly distant 3rd and 4th.
I think the dream ticket for the Democrats in Newsom for President and AOC as his VP. Newson, tall white straight male, is type cast for the role of President. Trump would approve. Newsom will appeal to information poor independents just on his appearance alone. So he can widen the net.
AOC, on the other hand, will get out the vote of core Democrats, particularly the young. With Newsom leading strategy, and providing reassurance on AOC, they would make a formidable team. I don't think this will emerge until after the midterms, but I would put money on it.
A California with New York ego ticket is far from ideal.
And Newsom would have to explain this in any Presidential election:
California will welcome the new year by becoming the first state to offer health insurance for all undocumented immigrants.
I'm not sure that voters in Arizona or Michigan who are struggling to pay their own health premiums will be happy to pay extra tax so that illegal immigrants get free health care.
The primary voters need to understand that they’re winning CA and NY anyway, their candidates need to appeal to the swing states that actually decide who wins.
Newsom is a snake who appears to believe in nothing except holding power. AOC is at least honest even if IMHO misguided.
They really need to look instead to Sens and Govs from the middle of the country, who understand the people who live there. Who is the Dem JD Vance, with a compelling story to tell?
Some are questioning why Andrew is not being questioned by the police over yesterday's revelations as trafficking is a criminal offence
I expect there will be increasing demands for the police to become involved with Andrew
He would have to have known the woman was trafficked, he did not do the trafficking himself, that was Epstein and Maxwell who have already been convicted and jailed (or would have been in the former case)
Which allows me to mention this point again. Maxwell, convicted sex trafficker, has British, French and USA nationality. Why has there been no move to strip her of her British nationality?
Because stripping people of their nationality hasn’t, up till now, been used as an extra-judicial punishment. But as an operational end run around the human rights laws, to exile people who are considered dangerous.
Consider the fun a Reform government will have with the ability to cancel citizenship and (presumably) the right to live in the U.K.
Anyone with an offensive wife or who wears a loud shirt in a built up area will be on Ze List, probably.
I don't like the future of Katie Hopkins and Andrea Jenkyns' husband then
The whole point of history is to try not to repeat the fun bits.
The Thirty Tyrants in Athens cancelled citizenship. See Theramenes.
Okay. So everyone's angry. Very angry. They don't know precisely why they're angry nor what precisely to do about it, but angry they are. Very angry in fact. Yes, for sure. They are angry.
If you believe what you read in the media (both mass and social), you end up thinking that our city centres are post-apocalyptic hellholes into which only the most brave or foolhardy would venture. That's certainly the case with a few of my suburban and rural relatives. But when you actually go into the city, as we did yesterday for a cheese and wine tasting session (a Christmas present from my step-daughter), you find streets filled with busy but largely peaceful and friendly people going about their business: elderly shoppers, vivacious students, council workmen and police on bicycles. The disconnect between reality and perception seems to have grown beyond all proportion.
I see the odds on Vance and Newsom as next President are converging towards 4.4. Vance is lengthening. Newsom is shortening. At the moment they are the only two in the race. Rubio and AOC are a fairly distant 3rd and 4th.
I think the dream ticket for the Democrats in Newsom for President and AOC as his VP. Newson, tall white straight male, is type cast for the role of President. Trump would approve. Newsom will appeal to information poor independents just on his appearance alone. So he can widen the net.
AOC, on the other hand, will get out the vote of core Democrats, particularly the young. With Newsom leading strategy, and providing reassurance on AOC, they would make a formidable team. I don't think this will emerge until after the midterms, but I would put money on it.
A California with New York ego ticket is far from ideal.
And Newsom would have to explain this in any Presidential election:
California will welcome the new year by becoming the first state to offer health insurance for all undocumented immigrants.
I'm not sure that voters in Arizona or Michigan who are struggling to pay their own health premiums will be happy to pay extra tax so that illegal immigrants get free health care.
The primary voters need to understand that they’re winning CA and NY anyway, their candidates need to appeal to the swing states that actually decide who wins.
Newsom is a snake who appears to believe in nothing except holding power. AOC is at least honest even if IMHO misguided.
They really need to look instead to Sens and Govs from the middle of the country, who understand the people who live there. Who is the Dem JD Vance, with a compelling story to tell?
So you are saying that Newsom is a standard issue Western politician?
Most standard issue Western politicians at least have an underlying belief in something, of making the world a better place. We may agree with them or disagreee with them, but that’s politics and the predominant view among the electorate takes the win.
This guy changes his mind like the wind, he doesn’t believe in anything at all and will give totally opposite answers to the same question days apart.
must be doing something right to get a unified line from the trump adjacent to use against him mind.
On the contrary, the likes of Newsom or AOC getting nominated would be a gift to the Republicans.
They need a younger version of Joe Biden.
Joe Biden the career politician from Delaware? Newsom at least created some businesses?
Okay. So everyone's angry. Very angry. They don't know precisely why they're angry nor what precisely to do about it, but angry they are. Very angry in fact. Yes, for sure. They are angry.
If you believe what you read in the media (both mass and social), you end up thinking that our city centres are post-apocalyptic hellholes into which only the most brave or foolhardy would venture. That's certainly the case with a few of my suburban and rural relatives. But when you actually go into the city, as we did yesterday for a cheese and wine tasting session (a Christmas present from my step-daughter), you find streets filled with busy but largely peaceful and friendly people going about their business: elderly shoppers, vivacious students, council workmen and police on bicycles. The disconnect between reality and perception seems to have grown beyond all proportion.
Yes, last year I spent a weekend around several London boroughs - Enfield, Hackney, Haringey. I was amazed to discover they were nowhere near as bad as the American Trump supporters on social media are constantly asserting.
I see the odds on Vance and Newsom as next President are converging towards 4.4. Vance is lengthening. Newsom is shortening. At the moment they are the only two in the race. Rubio and AOC are a fairly distant 3rd and 4th.
I think the dream ticket for the Democrats in Newsom for President and AOC as his VP. Newson, tall white straight male, is type cast for the role of President. Trump would approve. Newsom will appeal to information poor independents just on his appearance alone. So he can widen the net.
AOC, on the other hand, will get out the vote of core Democrats, particularly the young. With Newsom leading strategy, and providing reassurance on AOC, they would make a formidable team. I don't think this will emerge until after the midterms, but I would put money on it.
A California with New York ego ticket is far from ideal.
And Newsom would have to explain this in any Presidential election:
California will welcome the new year by becoming the first state to offer health insurance for all undocumented immigrants.
I'm not sure that voters in Arizona or Michigan who are struggling to pay their own health premiums will be happy to pay extra tax so that illegal immigrants get free health care.
The primary voters need to understand that they’re winning CA and NY anyway, their candidates need to appeal to the swing states that actually decide who wins.
Newsom is a snake who appears to believe in nothing except holding power. AOC is at least honest even if IMHO misguided.
They really need to look instead to Sens and Govs from the middle of the country, who understand the people who live there. Who is the Dem JD Vance, with a compelling story to tell?
I need to dig up my list of every Dem Senator or Governor aged 45-65. They’re probably all worth a couple of quid at long odds at this point. We all remember when Obama came from almost nowhere in the primaries.
Some are questioning why Andrew is not being questioned by the police over yesterday's revelations as trafficking is a criminal offence
I expect there will be increasing demands for the police to become involved with Andrew
He would have to have known the woman was trafficked, he did not do the trafficking himself, that was Epstein and Maxwell who have already been convicted and jailed (or would have been in the former case)
Which allows me to mention this point again. Maxwell, convicted sex trafficker, has British, French and USA nationality. Why has there been no move to strip her of her British nationality?
Because stripping people of their nationality hasn’t, up till now, been used as an extra-judicial punishment. But as an operational end run around the human rights laws, to exile people who are considered dangerous.
Consider the fun a Reform government will have with the ability to cancel citizenship and (presumably) the right to live in the U.K.
Anyone with an offensive wife or who wears a loud shirt in a built up area will be on Ze List, probably.
I don't like the future of Katie Hopkins and Andrea Jenkyns' husband then
Okay. So everyone's angry. Very angry. They don't know precisely why they're angry nor what precisely to do about it, but angry they are. Very angry in fact. Yes, for sure. They are angry.
If you believe what you read in the media (both mass and social), you end up thinking that our city centres are post-apocalyptic hellholes into which only the most brave or foolhardy would venture. That's certainly the case with a few of my suburban and rural relatives. But when you actually go into the city, as we did yesterday for a cheese and wine tasting session (a Christmas present from my step-daughter), you find streets filled with busy but largely peaceful and friendly people going about their business: elderly shoppers, vivacious students, council workmen and police on bicycles. The disconnect between reality and perception seems to have grown beyond all proportion.
I see the odds on Vance and Newsom as next President are converging towards 4.4. Vance is lengthening. Newsom is shortening. At the moment they are the only two in the race. Rubio and AOC are a fairly distant 3rd and 4th.
I think the dream ticket for the Democrats in Newsom for President and AOC as his VP. Newson, tall white straight male, is type cast for the role of President. Trump would approve. Newsom will appeal to information poor independents just on his appearance alone. So he can widen the net.
AOC, on the other hand, will get out the vote of core Democrats, particularly the young. With Newsom leading strategy, and providing reassurance on AOC, they would make a formidable team. I don't think this will emerge until after the midterms, but I would put money on it.
A California with New York ego ticket is far from ideal.
And Newsom would have to explain this in any Presidential election:
California will welcome the new year by becoming the first state to offer health insurance for all undocumented immigrants.
I'm not sure that voters in Arizona or Michigan who are struggling to pay their own health premiums will be happy to pay extra tax so that illegal immigrants get free health care.
The primary voters need to understand that they’re winning CA and NY anyway, their candidates need to appeal to the swing states that actually decide who wins.
Newsom is a snake who appears to believe in nothing except holding power. AOC is at least honest even if IMHO misguided.
They really need to look instead to Sens and Govs from the middle of the country, who understand the people who live there. Who is the Dem JD Vance, with a compelling story to tell?
Vance has many stories to tell, often contradictory.
Harold Wilson said "a week is a long time in politics". On PB from one thread to the next is an eternity. I am reading that the economy has upturned and on the Starmer-Reeves watch.
I missed it myself but thanks everyone for the heads up.
Myself and a couple of others made comments about this on Thursday, I think? Borrowing lower than expected in December, growth in retail in December if not over the quarter, PMIs a bit better without being incredible. It was definitely more positive.
My name is Andy Burnham and I do not endorse this message.
Okay. So everyone's angry. Very angry. They don't know precisely why they're angry nor what precisely to do about it, but angry they are. Very angry in fact. Yes, for sure. They are angry.
If you believe what you read in the media (both mass and social), you end up thinking that our city centres are post-apocalyptic hellholes into which only the most brave or foolhardy would venture. That's certainly the case with a few of my suburban and rural relatives. But when you actually go into the city, as we did yesterday for a cheese and wine tasting session (a Christmas present from my step-daughter), you find streets filled with busy but largely peaceful and friendly people going about their business: elderly shoppers, vivacious students, council workmen and police on bicycles. The disconnect between reality and perception seems to have grown beyond all proportion.
Yes, last year I spent a weekend around several London boroughs - Enfield, Hackney, Haringey. I was amazed to discover they were nowhere near as bad as the American Trump supporters on social media are constantly asserting.
Genuinely amazed that the reality of parts of the U.K. is not the same as apocryphal non U.K. based posters claim. Uncanny.
I see the odds on Vance and Newsom as next President are converging towards 4.4. Vance is lengthening. Newsom is shortening. At the moment they are the only two in the race. Rubio and AOC are a fairly distant 3rd and 4th.
I think the dream ticket for the Democrats in Newsom for President and AOC as his VP. Newson, tall white straight male, is type cast for the role of President. Trump would approve. Newsom will appeal to information poor independents just on his appearance alone. So he can widen the net.
AOC, on the other hand, will get out the vote of core Democrats, particularly the young. With Newsom leading strategy, and providing reassurance on AOC, they would make a formidable team. I don't think this will emerge until after the midterms, but I would put money on it.
A California with New York ego ticket is far from ideal.
And Newsom would have to explain this in any Presidential election:
California will welcome the new year by becoming the first state to offer health insurance for all undocumented immigrants.
I'm not sure that voters in Arizona or Michigan who are struggling to pay their own health premiums will be happy to pay extra tax so that illegal immigrants get free health care.
The primary voters need to understand that they’re winning CA and NY anyway, their candidates need to appeal to the swing states that actually decide who wins.
Newsom is a snake who appears to believe in nothing except holding power. AOC is at least honest even if IMHO misguided.
They really need to look instead to Sens and Govs from the middle of the country, who understand the people who live there. Who is the Dem JD Vance, with a compelling story to tell?
So you are saying that Newsom is a standard issue Western politician?
Most standard issue Western politicians at least have an underlying belief in something, of making the world a better place. We may agree with them or disagreee with them, but that’s politics and the predominant view among the electorate takes the win.
This guy changes his mind like the wind, he doesn’t believe in anything at all and will give totally opposite answers to the same question days apart.
must be doing something right to get a unified line from the trump adjacent to use against him mind.
On the contrary, the likes of Newsom or AOC getting nominated would be a gift to the Republicans.
They need a younger version of Joe Biden.
The idea that California Kamala needed to balance the ticket by absorbing Coach Walz from the Midwest didn't hit the spot.
You don't know that. It was a close election and it might have gone even worse with a less balanced ticket.
Okay. So everyone's angry. Very angry. They don't know precisely why they're angry nor what precisely to do about it, but angry they are. Very angry in fact. Yes, for sure. They are angry.
If you believe what you read in the media (both mass and social), you end up thinking that our city centres are post-apocalyptic hellholes into which only the most brave or foolhardy would venture. That's certainly the case with a few of my suburban and rural relatives. But when you actually go into the city, as we did yesterday for a cheese and wine tasting session (a Christmas present from my step-daughter), you find streets filled with busy but largely peaceful and friendly people going about their business: elderly shoppers, vivacious students, council workmen and police on bicycles. The disconnect between reality and perception seems to have grown beyond all proportion.
Yes, last year I spent a weekend around several London boroughs - Enfield, Hackney, Haringey. I was amazed to discover they were nowhere near as bad as the American Trump supporters on social media are constantly asserting.
Genuinely amazed that the reality of parts of the U.K. is not the same as apocryphal non U.K. based posters claim. Uncanny.
Curiously, it was NYT that started this, years back - bizarre stories about the U.K. as post-apocalyptic hellscape.
In those stories, the locals would be quoted as speaking in New York idiom and using US related sporting metaphors.
Okay. So everyone's angry. Very angry. They don't know precisely why they're angry nor what precisely to do about it, but angry they are. Very angry in fact. Yes, for sure. They are angry.
If you believe what you read in the media (both mass and social), you end up thinking that our city centres are post-apocalyptic hellholes into which only the most brave or foolhardy would venture. That's certainly the case with a few of my suburban and rural relatives. But when you actually go into the city, as we did yesterday for a cheese and wine tasting session (a Christmas present from my step-daughter), you find streets filled with busy but largely peaceful and friendly people going about their business: elderly shoppers, vivacious students, council workmen and police on bicycles. The disconnect between reality and perception seems to have grown beyond all proportion.
I've come across this "won't go into Central Manchester" idea. But - and this has just occurred to me - largely from people from working class suburbs. Wythenshawe, Blackley, Middleton. And John Harris reports Denton, which fits the trend. I've never heard it from people from Sale or Altrincham or Chorlton. It's those who are from areas which are already a bit rough who are most fearful. FWIW, I regularly walk through Piccadilly Gardens. And while it's diatinctly unedifying, I've never had any trouble whatsoever.
Okay. So everyone's angry. Very angry. They don't know precisely why they're angry nor what precisely to do about it, but angry they are. Very angry in fact. Yes, for sure. They are angry.
If you believe what you read in the media (both mass and social), you end up thinking that our city centres are post-apocalyptic hellholes into which only the most brave or foolhardy would venture. That's certainly the case with a few of my suburban and rural relatives. But when you actually go into the city, as we did yesterday for a cheese and wine tasting session (a Christmas present from my step-daughter), you find streets filled with busy but largely peaceful and friendly people going about their business: elderly shoppers, vivacious students, council workmen and police on bicycles. The disconnect between reality and perception seems to have grown beyond all proportion.
Yes, last year I spent a weekend around several London boroughs - Enfield, Hackney, Haringey. I was amazed to discover they were nowhere near as bad as the American Trump supporters on social media are constantly asserting.
Genuinely amazed that the reality of parts of the U.K. is not the same as apocryphal non U.K. based posters claim. Uncanny.
Curiously, it was NYT that started this, years back - bizarre stories about the U.K. as post-apocalyptic hellscape.
In those stories, the locals would be quoted as speaking in New York idiom and using US related sporting metaphors.
Okay. So everyone's angry. Very angry. They don't know precisely why they're angry nor what precisely to do about it, but angry they are. Very angry in fact. Yes, for sure. They are angry.
If you believe what you read in the media (both mass and social), you end up thinking that our city centres are post-apocalyptic hellholes into which only the most brave or foolhardy would venture. That's certainly the case with a few of my suburban and rural relatives. But when you actually go into the city, as we did yesterday for a cheese and wine tasting session (a Christmas present from my step-daughter), you find streets filled with busy but largely peaceful and friendly people going about their business: elderly shoppers, vivacious students, council workmen and police on bicycles. The disconnect between reality and perception seems to have grown beyond all proportion.
Yes, last year I spent a weekend around several London boroughs - Enfield, Hackney, Haringey. I was amazed to discover they were nowhere near as bad as the American Trump supporters on social media are constantly asserting.
Genuinely amazed that the reality of parts of the U.K. is not the same as apocryphal non U.K. based posters claim. Uncanny.
I was being a bit ironic. But there's a serious point to this. If you're on the American Right and you want to triumph against your Leftist opponent in, say, New York, what better way of spooking the voters than portraying his Leftist counterpart in London as being a Marxist Islamist autocrat? It's not just people being obtuse; there are cynical political calculations behind all of this disinformation.
Note that the graphic contains the text "...Margin of error is displayed at +/- 4%. All polls are subject to a wide range of potential sources of error. On the basis of the historical record of the polls at recent general elections, there is a 9 in 10 chance that the true value of a party's support lies within 4 points of the estimates provided by this poll, and a 2 in three chance that they lie within 2 points..."
This statement obeys the British Polling Council rules concerning margin of error.
So Reform are either level with Labour or 16 points ahead.
Or somewhere in between.
Or not (10% chance).
It's great that they are honest enough to admit the limitations of their work, albeit doubtless in the tiniest print their lawyers will let them get away with. But it also shows how foolish people are to obsess about tiny movements one way or the other, no matter which side they benefit.
Political polling is both fascinating and also very limited in its 'certainty value'. It has, though IANAE, it seems to me three unrelated variables: firstly the well known mathematical one about all sampling and the MOE. This is fairly simple to understand. The second is about how you achieve a valid demographic sample especially when so many (is there a demographic bias in this) refuse to play this particular game. The third, and it seems to me hardest, is how you deal with the raw data of how many of which group said what about a decision of today they are not actually going to enact today as there is no election, and might not enact on the day in three years time. That is, how to turn the raw data into an accurate account, from what this group of people say, to what this group of people would actually do if they voting today - and therefore what the nation would do.
The third problem, it seems to me, involves what some would call careful academically informed judgment, and I would call rational guesswork.
As an election gets closer it is reasonable to assume that the raw data gets more reliable because of human nature. For me this far out I only really look at three things: the rolling average, the direction of the graph lines, and the direction of the political wind and weather to inform guesses about the future.
If I am broadly correct it cannot be surprising that polling is all over the place, especially taking account of my third factor.
Okay. So everyone's angry. Very angry. They don't know precisely why they're angry nor what precisely to do about it, but angry they are. Very angry in fact. Yes, for sure. They are angry.
If you believe what you read in the media (both mass and social), you end up thinking that our city centres are post-apocalyptic hellholes into which only the most brave or foolhardy would venture. That's certainly the case with a few of my suburban and rural relatives. But when you actually go into the city, as we did yesterday for a cheese and wine tasting session (a Christmas present from my step-daughter), you find streets filled with busy but largely peaceful and friendly people going about their business: elderly shoppers, vivacious students, council workmen and police on bicycles. The disconnect between reality and perception seems to have grown beyond all proportion.
Yes, last year I spent a weekend around several London boroughs - Enfield, Hackney, Haringey. I was amazed to discover they were nowhere near as bad as the American Trump supporters on social media are constantly asserting.
Genuinely amazed that the reality of parts of the U.K. is not the same as apocryphal non U.K. based posters claim. Uncanny.
Curiously, it was NYT that started this, years back - bizarre stories about the U.K. as post-apocalyptic hellscape.
In those stories, the locals would be quoted as speaking in New York idiom and using US related sporting metaphors.
Oh god, they don’t say ‘y’all’ do they 😡
The Fourth Wall fairly exploded, when in one article, a resident of Chingford (or similar) was supposed to have complained about the state of the nation using *American* football terms.
I've noticed that it has become common for people (usually Labour fans) to claim that @FindOutNowUK ranks Reform UK as massively higher in polls than every single other pollster.
This is objectively false. It is simply not true. Majority of pollsters have Reform on 30% or above
I've noticed that it has become common for people (usually Labour fans) to claim that @FindOutNowUK ranks Reform UK as massively higher in polls than every single other pollster.
This is objectively false. It is simply not true. Majority of pollsters have Reform on 30% or above
In the header I linked to you can see why I consider it a problem.
It’s been a long day, but I can’t see where you make that point. Never mind.
I love a poll but there’s always a significant part of me that thinks they are absolute nonsense
It feels like on social media the poll that gets most attention each week is the Find Out Now poll because they are the pollster who are consistently showing Labour doing the worst.
Okay. So everyone's angry. Very angry. They don't know precisely why they're angry nor what precisely to do about it, but angry they are. Very angry in fact. Yes, for sure. They are angry.
If you believe what you read in the media (both mass and social), you end up thinking that our city centres are post-apocalyptic hellholes into which only the most brave or foolhardy would venture. That's certainly the case with a few of my suburban and rural relatives. But when you actually go into the city, as we did yesterday for a cheese and wine tasting session (a Christmas present from my step-daughter), you find streets filled with busy but largely peaceful and friendly people going about their business: elderly shoppers, vivacious students, council workmen and police on bicycles. The disconnect between reality and perception seems to have grown beyond all proportion.
Yes, last year I spent a weekend around several London boroughs - Enfield, Hackney, Haringey. I was amazed to discover they were nowhere near as bad as the American Trump supporters on social media are constantly asserting.
Genuinely amazed that the reality of parts of the U.K. is not the same as apocryphal non U.K. based posters claim. Uncanny.
Curiously, it was NYT that started this, years back - bizarre stories about the U.K. as post-apocalyptic hellscape.
In those stories, the locals would be quoted as speaking in New York idiom and using US related sporting metaphors.
If you read popular USA detective/crime stuff, Michael Connolly (LA) or Lawrence Block (NY) for example - who are great fun - you would not think it possible to live in California or New York and live to tell the tale.
I've noticed that it has become common for people (usually Labour fans) to claim that @FindOutNowUK ranks Reform UK as massively higher in polls than every single other pollster.
This is objectively false. It is simply not true. Majority of pollsters have Reform on 30% or above
In the header I linked to you can see why I consider it a problem.
It’s been a long day, but I can’t see where you make that point. Never mind.
I love a poll but there’s always a significant part of me that thinks they are absolute nonsense
It feels like on social media the poll that gets most attention each week is the Find Out Now poll because they are the pollster who are consistently showing Labour doing the worst.
Yes, I read that. I don’t see why that would be a problem for them though
Comments
HMRC, for instance, about the so-called 'loan' to Mandelson's husband. All the issues I have identified above relate to the U.K.. He is a member of our legislature. He has more power and influence than Andrew.
There is a real danger here - as in, for instance, the Post Office scandal - of focusing all the anger and disgust on one useful scapegoat and the others equally responsible get ignored. This should not be allowed to happen. Mandelson is meant to be intelligent; just as Jes Staley was and Bill Gates and others and yet all of them, including Andrew, have behaved like utter duplicitous scumbags.
Maxwell, convicted sex trafficker, has British, French and USA nationality. Why has there been no move to strip her of her British nationality?
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-01-19/uk-productivity-surge-signals-economic-turnaround-study-finds
I remember we used to say Starmer was a “lucky general”. We don’t any more
However, we may be forced to disinter the phrase if the UK goes into a mini-boom alongside other advanced economies. This worst and most depressing of prime ministers might actually get a second term. God ‘elp us
On the other hand it means the Republicans are equally likely to win again in 2028 if America booms (and their boom will be bigger than ours)
So, swings and roundabouts
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/02/01/mandelson-tried-change-bankers-bonus-policy-epstein-request/
Who was running the UK government?
Vance is lengthening. Newsom is shortening.
At the moment they are the only two in the race. Rubio and AOC are a fairly distant 3rd and 4th.
I think the dream ticket for the Democrats in Newsom for President and AOC as his VP.
Newson, tall white straight male, is type cast for the role of President. Trump would approve. Newsom will appeal to information poor independents just on his appearance alone. So he can widen the net.
AOC, on the other hand, will get out the vote of core Democrats, particularly the young.
With Newsom leading strategy, and providing reassurance on AOC, they would make a formidable team.
I don't think this will emerge until after the midterms, but I would put money on it.
https://x.com/RnaudBertrand/status/2017850436846530666
In fact people get even more annoyed if there is economic growth without them benefiting than they do from no economic growth.
Rising productivity can mean greater profits for the rich alongside fewer jobs and more output for no more pay for the workers.
“Conducive to the public good” is the only significant issue here. Usually it’s on national security or serious crime grounds but there are wider issues for the HS to consider. One of them being the diplomatic backlash arising from washing our hands of one of our criminal citizens and leaving her as solely the problem of another country. While we might not care what Bangladesh (Shamima Begum) thinks of us doing so, we likely do care about what the US and, to an extent, France thinks of us dumping our highly problematic citizens on them alone.
For example, if Pakistan stripped Anjem Choudary of his citizenship, leaving him unable to be stripped of U.K. citizenship, we’d be unhappy I guess.
And Newsom would have to explain this in any Presidential election:
California will welcome the new year by becoming the first state to offer health insurance for all undocumented immigrants.
https://abcnews.go.com/Health/california-1st-state-offer-health-insurance-undocumented-immigrants/story?id=105986377
I'm not sure that voters in Arizona or Michigan who are struggling to pay their own health premiums will be happy to pay extra tax so that illegal immigrants get free health care.
Or somewhere in between.
Or not (10% chance).
It's great that they are honest enough to admit the limitations of their work, albeit doubtless in the tiniest print their lawyers will let them get away with. But it also shows how foolish people are to obsess about tiny movements one way or the other, no matter which side they benefit.
You're already pitchrolling by saying the upswing will not be UK specific and will be mainly due to external factors, ie luck. That happens to be correct. But when it comes to poor economic news it's straight out of the gate with "Labour are shit, Reeves is clueless" bla di bla. Not just you, tbf, this is a pretty widespread (bad) habit on the unthinking partisan right.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn40kmrkk9xo
Same goes for useless incumbents across the world. Especially the GOP. So this is not a left-right thing
Humanity has had a rough few years. We are owed a lucky break
Also, partisans of the government always declare that the news reporting is unfair to them.
‘Twas ever thus
Either AI can be used to vastly expand the river of pointless* bullshit - in an endless arms race with AI to summarise said bullshit. Or we can rework process to meet the needs of ordinary humans, not the form fillers.
*in some ways the bullshit is not pointless. It is not harmless. Grenfell had metric tons of paperwork that proved it was fire safe, environmentally friendly, feminist, multicultural and non-fattening. Before it burnt down because it was covered in firelighters. The bullshit mountain obscured the truth.
And I agree, NigelF is not a decent bloke.
Anyway if the economy picks up and we get decent growth hardly anyone will care about such stuff.
Most of us will just be pleased and if labour reap the rewards so be it. I’ll just say I knew I was right to vote for them.
*Edit, Mel Stride is rubbish though. Why do we need a bargain basement Jeremy Hunt apologist when we could just have Jeremy Hunt?
Newsom is a snake who appears to believe in nothing except holding power. AOC is at least honest even if IMHO misguided.
They really need to look instead to Sens and Govs from the middle of the country, who understand the people who live there. Who is the Dem JD Vance, with a compelling story to tell?
Doesn't bode well even if Reform are left with a "golden legacy". Should we all follow Tice and @Sandpit to Dubai?
This guy changes his mind like the wind, he doesn’t believe in anything at all and will give totally opposite answers to the same question days apart.
https://bsky.app/profile/dailyherald.bsky.social/post/3mds6exricc2o
Apparently did well in the 2024 GM Mayoral race, coming third, ahead of the official Reform candidate.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/jan/30/gorton-and-denton-labour-reform-candidate-matthew-goodwin-tommy-robinson-endorsement
My sense is that there's definitely a market for a raging opportunist/careerist for the Dems.
"Pakistan will boycott their Group A game against India at the 2026 T20 World Cup. A post issued by the Government of Pakistan's official X account said the government had granted permission to the Pakistan team to travel to Sri Lanka for the tournament. However, it said that "the Pakistan cricket team shall not take the field in the match scheduled on 15 February 2026 against India".
The statement did not specify a reason for that decision. The full post on X was as follows: "The Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan grants approval to the Pakistan Cricket Team to participate in the ICC World T20 2026, however, the Pakistan Cricket Team shall not take the field in the match scheduled on 15th February 2026 against India." It is understood the PCB is yet to write to the ICC informing them of the boycott."
£12m, nah.
That is an admission of serious wrongdoing.
- not obviously addled brain
- not many political convictions
- not many criminal convictions
- sense of humour
- low count on number of attempt to overthrow the government
- etc
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/feb/01/labour-gorton-and-denton-byelection-reform-fury
They need a younger version of Joe Biden.
SOTV
Do they ban Pakistan from the tournament, move the match to a neutral venue, or give India the win with a fine for Pakistan for the lost revenue?
I’m in favour of the middle option, but only because I live in the most obvious neutral venue and could probably get tickets to watch it!
But he has been telling this story for ten years, and the gulf between Labour and those whom it once represented has git wider and wider.
Only one geographic criticism - peculiar to call Gorton tge 'outer' edge of the constituency, what with it being less outer than Denton, in relation to Central Manchster.
Bottom line: it ain't going to be Labour winning here.
He never thinks anything through.
In fact, I'm not sure he thinks at all.
Consider the fun a Reform government will have with the ability to cancel citizenship and (presumably) the right to live in the U.K.
Anyone with an offensive wife or who wears a loud shirt in a built up area will be on Ze List, probably.
The magnitude of thaf effect will likely trump any switching by the persuadables.
I missed it myself but thanks everyone for the heads up.
*is that the one about the barbecued cats and dogs ?
It might be a close run thing.
A Beshear-Warnock ticket would be strong.
And so would Shapiro-Kelly.
The Thirty Tyrants in Athens cancelled citizenship. See Theramenes.
It’s still a bad idea.
I need to dig up my list of every Dem Senator or Governor aged 45-65. They’re probably all worth a couple of quid at long odds at this point. We all remember when Obama came from almost nowhere in the primaries.
Huge if true.
In those stories, the locals would be quoted as speaking in New York idiom and using US related sporting metaphors.
Just off the top of my head, here are three:
Josh Shapiro: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josh_Shapiro (governor of Pennsylvania)
Andy Beshear: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Beshear (governor of Kentucky)
Amy Klobuchar: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_Klobuchar (senator, running for governor of Minnesota)
(All three are better qualified than Harris, Biden, and Obama.)
It's those who are from areas which are already a bit rough who are most fearful.
FWIW, I regularly walk through Piccadilly Gardens. And while it's diatinctly unedifying, I've never had any trouble whatsoever.
The third problem, it seems to me, involves what some would call careful academically informed judgment, and I would call rational guesswork.
As an election gets closer it is reasonable to assume that the raw data gets more reliable because of human nature. For me this far out I only really look at three things: the rolling average, the direction of the graph lines, and the direction of the political wind and weather to inform guesses about the future.
If I am broadly correct it cannot be surprising that polling is all over the place, especially taking account of my third factor.
I love a poll but there’s always a significant part of me that thinks they are absolute nonsense